Unofficial Preview Sack Hinkley 2: Septic Portaloo

Part 2?? Why hasn’t Ken been sacked yet???

  • Total voters
    200

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
bomberclifford said:
I'd be interested to hear from Billy Frampton and Kane Farrell about their opinion on Ken.
Click to expand...
Billy does not like Ken and neither do a large portion of the younger playing group. I got this directly from a close friend of his.
 
WhyAlwaysMe said:
Billy does not like Ken and neither do a large portion of the younger playing group. I got this directly from a close friend of his.
Click to expand...
Can you blame him ! If I were Billy I wouldn’t like the clown either.

Can certainly see a group of the younger guys walk out at the end of the year. Frampton and Atley being two of them.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

no-billy-please.jpg
 
WhyAlwaysMe said:
Billy does not like Ken and neither do a large portion of the younger playing group. I got this directly from a close friend of his.
Click to expand...

Imagine talking to this potato -

"Coach, I'm having trouble with my kicking."

"Youse just work harder"

"Coach, I'm confused about my role in the team."

"Youse just work harder"

"Coach, I'm interested in quantum mechanics."

"...youse just work harder"
 
Magus said:
Hey Rooch. If you're reading this, GFY.

I hope when the new regime is ushered in they lock the doors on you.
Click to expand...
Maybe Rooch''s new nickname should be Argo.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that if there was no 100% tax on the soft footy department cap, excess spending our board would have or would sack Ken by the end of this season, or talk him into quitting like Duncanson and Haysman did with Choco in 2010, after only 11 months earlier giving him a 2 year deal.

In the Part I thread, I listed all Port's A grade coaches since 1945 and we have sacked / not reappointed all of them except for Quinn and Roberts when they retired as playing-coaches and players in the late 1940's, and Fos at the end of 1973. So our boards have a history of sacking not reappointing coaches when there has been no soft cap tax.

The board, unless they come up with the $1mil or so needed to pay the soft cap tax personally, aren't going to budge.

However, I hope the conditions in Hinkley's 3 year deal, that supposedly is 2 years plus a finals trigger for the 3rd year, says we have to make finals both years for Hinkley to get a 3rd year, not just make finals 1 year out of 2.

As Tredders said on AA the other night, if you don't know the conditions of Hinkley's contract it makes it hard to say with any assurity what is the best action to take, because you don't know the financial consequences.

This is where we need a wiki-leaks, FSB, PLA Unit 61398, Bradley Manning type hack, to get a copy of the contract to know for sure, because the club or Ken wont release details.

A one year pay out makes it more manageable. Maybe that is why Ken is picking crap sides. He knows the club could handle a 1 year payout but not 2, doesn't want to stick around anyway, so is working on an exit.

Lets play around with some figures.

Lets assume Ken gets paid $800k a year. If it was a 1 year pay out we say we will pay you the standard $75k per month from 1/11/19 to 31/10/20 so that the soft cap tax is delayed by a year and paid after 31/10/20.

If you want an upfront pay out, we will give you $650k, as we are being hit with a tax post 31.10.19 not post 31.10.20.

Lets say we appoint Schofield or Monty as Ken's replacement. Lets assume we are paying them $200k at the moment as an assistant. We say we will pay them $300k in 2020 but will pay them $800k or $900k in 2021. Only give them a 2 year deal to start with. No different to back ending contracts for players.

As both are Port people they are more likely to understand our situation and accept it over an outsider. Now I want us to get the best coach available, but if the decision is marginal between Schofield or Monty vs an outsider, then I would stay with a club great.

I don't know how tight the anti-avoidance rules re associates of the club for the soft cap are, compared to those you have with player for footy payments and in particular ASA's and true independent ASA's, but get our sponsors to pay maybe $200k of Schofield or Monty's salary on top of what the club has to pay and report to the AFL. If they do that, then we don't have to back end his contract with a $800k-$900k payment in 2021.

I have assumed based on media reports that an experienced coach will get paid about $800k - $1m range and a new first time senior coach will get paid in the $400k-$500k range in their first year.

Now if its a 2 year payout that is around a $1.6m payout we can still do some or all of the above tactics re paying the contract out over 2 years, reducing the upfront payment, getting sponsors assist pay the new coaches salary etc but we would need an extra dimension. That would mean a soft cap tax of around $1.6m either paid up front or spread out over 2 years.

Now this would be hard to do and can't be endorsed by the club, but if 10,000 to 15,000 members and fans pledged $100 to payout Hinkley or the soft cap tax amount, then we as members could help fix up this mess.

Now we would have to get around mickey mouse pledges but make sure they are real. So who ever organises this would have to ask for credit card #'s / bank accounts #'s to debit the members' sccounts to make sure its real. Basically you market it as paying an extra 20% to 33% of your membership for 1 year, to get rid of Hinkley and not have to put up with 2 years of crap.

This has lots of privacy issues and would be hard to co-ordinate. But this is maybe where our new sponsorship with PwC comes into play. Put them in charge of the "Trust Fund" to collect monies and pay across to the club and handle the privacy issue with having up to 15,000 bank account details.

The payment could be $100 up front of say over 5 payments depending on how we paying out Hinkley and/or the soft cap tax. You could pledge more than $100.

You ask these pledgers if they would like to form a supporters group that officially lobbies the club on other issues and can keep their details via the PwC arrangement. Eg #bringbackthebars, the manifesto, no co-cptains, more directors elected by members etc.

This group of members therefore get a greater voice in keeping the club in check and have their say as they are saving the club from financial embarrassment. It gives these pledgers a greater sense of ownership of, and involvement in the club than they currently have.

Bloody hard to do, but not impossible.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that if there was no 100% tax on the soft footy department cap, excess spending our board would have or would sack Ken by the end of this season, or talk him into quitting like Duncanson and Haysman did with Choco in 2010, after only 11 months earlier giving him a 2 year deal.

In the Part I thread, I listed all Port's A grade coaches since 1945 and we have sacked / not reappointed all of them except for Quinn and Roberts when they retired as playing-coaches and players in the late 1940's, and Fos at the end of 1973. So our boards have a history of sacking not reappointing coaches when there has been no soft cap tax.

The board, unless they come up with the $1mil or so needed to pay the soft cap tax personally, aren't going to budge.

However, I hope the conditions in Hinkley's 3 year deal, that supposedly is 2 years plus a finals trigger for the 3rd year, says we have to make finals both years for Hinkley to get a 3rd year, not just make finals 1 year out of 2.

As Tredders said on AA the other night, if you don't know the conditions of Hinkley's contract it makes it hard to say with any assurity what is the best action to take, because you don't know the financial consequences.

This is where we need a wiki-leaks, FSB, PLA Unit 61398, Bradley Manning type hack, to get a copy of the contract to know for sure, because the club or Ken wont release details.

A one year pay out makes it more manageable. Maybe that is why Ken is picking crap sides. He knows the club could handle a 1 year payout but not 2, doesn't want to stick around anyway, so is working on an exit.

Lets play around with some figures.

Lets assume Ken gets paid $800k a year. If it was a 1 year pay out we say we will pay you the standard $75k per month from 1/11/19 to 31/10/20 so that the soft cap tax is delayed by a year and paid after 31/10/20.

If you want an upfront pay out, we will give you $650k, as we are being hit with a tax post 31.10.19 not post 31.10.20.

Lets say we appoint Schofield or Monty as Ken's replacement. Lets assume we are paying them $200k at the moment as an assistant. We say we will pay them $300k in 2020 but will pay them $800k or $900k in 2021. Only give them a 2 year deal to start with. No different to back ending contracts for players.

As both are Port people they are more likely to understand our situation and accept it over an outsider. Now I want us to get the best coach available, but if the decision is marginal between Schofield or Monty vs an outsider, then I would stay with a club great.

I don't know how tight the anti-avoidance rules re associates of the club for the soft cap are, compared to those you have with player for footy payments and in particular ASA's and true independent ASA's, but get our sponsors to pay maybe $200k of Schofield or Monty's salary on top of what the club has to pay and report to the AFL. If they do that, then we don't have to back end his contract with a $800k-$900k payment in 2021.

I have assumed based on media reports that an experienced coach will get paid about $800k - $1m range and a new first time senior coach will get paid in the $400k-$500k range in their first year.

Now if its a 2 year payout that is around a $1.6m payout we can still do some or all of the above tactics re paying the contract out over 2 years, reducing the upfront payment, getting sponsors assist pay the new coaches salary etc but we would need an extra dimension. That would mean a soft cap tax of around $1.6m either paid up front or spread out over 2 years.

Now this would be hard to do and can't be endorsed by the club, but if 10,000 to 15,000 members and fans pledged $100 to payout Hinkley or the soft cap tax amount, then we as members could help fix up this mess.

Now we would have to get around mickey mouse pledges but make sure they are real. So who ever organises this would have to ask for credit card #'s / bank accounts #'s to debit the members' sccounts to make sure its real. Basically you market it as paying an extra 20% to 33% of your membership for 1 year, to get rid of Hinkley and not have to put up with 2 years of crap.

This has lots of privacy issues and would be hard to co-ordinate. But this is maybe where our new sponsorship with PwC comes into play. Put them in charge of the "Trust Fund" to collect monies and pay across to the club and handle the privacy issue with having up to 15,000 bank account details.

The payment could be $100 up front of say over 5 payments depending on how we paying out Hinkley and/or the soft cap tax. You could pledge more than $100.

You ask these pledgers if they would like to form a supporters group that officially lobbies the club on other issues and can keep their details via the PwC arrangement. Eg #bringbackthebars, the manifesto, no co-cptains, more directors elected by members etc.

This group of members therefore get a greater voice in keeping the club in check and have their say as they are saving the club from financial embarrassment. It gives these pledgers a greater sense of ownership of, and involvement in the club than they currently have.

Bloody hard to do, but not impossible.
Click to expand...
If our footy department spend is ~$20m per year, Hinkley's contract would take up about 5%.

Surely there is some fat/lower priority spend that we could cut back to avoid the soft cap tax, or at least minimise it.
 
Sleezy said:
If our footy department spend is ~$20m per year, Hinkley's contract would take up about 5%.

Surely there is some fat/lower priority spend that we could cut back to avoid the soft cap tax, or at least minimise it.
Click to expand...
The players with their ASA's take up $14m of the footy depart amount and you have to spend 95% of that and we are underspending not because we are banking $$$ for a big fish but we dont have the cash. So $20m is too low.

The non players component of footy dept spend is about $10m and the 8-10 coaches take up about 22-25% of that. You have about 40 people employed in the footy department.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sobrave
Opinion Sack Hinkley 10 - UnTENable
222 223 224 225 226
Replies
6K
Views
212K
philreich
philreich
Doctor Feel
  • Locked
Opinion Sack Hinkley 9 - I Am Become Donuts, Destroyer Of Ports
388 389 390 391 392
Replies
10K
Views
347K
PowerLil
PowerLil
Alyx
  • Locked
  • Poll
Opinion Sack Hinkley 8 - "Ask me in August"
393 394 395 396 397
Replies
10K
Views
322K
HighBudget
HighBudget
TeeKray
Universal Love Hinkleyball - A Short History
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
GoPorts
GoPorts
kozi
  • Locked
Opinion Sack Hinkley 6 - Kochblocked
396 397 398 399 400
Replies
10K
Views
346K
tribey
tribey
sobrave
Injury SACK DOCTORS 1 - CTE
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
779
Views
36K
Willsy10
Willsy10
sobrave
  • Locked
Game Day Ken Hinkley FC goes home vs Geelong Cats
67 68 69 70 71
Replies
2K
Views
28K
Duck Farmer
Duck Farmer
Back
Top